compare_preview_runs

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the action (compare) and broad purpose, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or requires specific permissions, nor does it describe what the output represents beyond 'comparison'.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise (one sentence, 7 words), but this brevity comes at the cost of important details. For a tool with 3 parameters and an output schema, the description is underspecified and does not earn its place—it should provide more information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of comparing manifests (with optional quality profiles) and the existence of many sibling tools, the description is too minimal. It does not cover prerequisites, error conditions, or the nature of the comparison result, even though an output schema exists.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage and no parameter explanations in the description, the agent receives no added meaning beyond the parameter names. The meaning of 'baseline_run_id', 'candidate_run_id', and especially 'quality_profile' (with its enum values) remains entirely opaque.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool compares two preview manifests, and the purpose 'to guide structured feedback and reproducible tuning' adds context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_preview_manifest or rank_preview_candidates, leaving room for ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to compare vs using get_preview_manifest or rank_preview_candidates). The description lacks any contextual usage advice.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.